Anti-ACA former sheriff now begging for money to pay for medical bills

[AggregateDemand]

What, did he say people who get sick should not receive any help from anyone?  Or do you just not like that he has a different view of how to best provide care for people?

This is like someone saying you don't support some weapons program so if we get invaded by another country we should let them bomb your house. 

Don't act like ACA is some magic pill that solves every problem with no downside.  It has good and it has bad. I know some people who got health insurance on the exchange and would still be begging for money for medical bills given the high deductibles they would have to pay before anything kicks in.

I commend your attempt to reason with the rabid non-sequitur demographic, but you really shouldn't. It only makes them confirm their biases even harder.

Yes, someone who doesn't support universal care would naturally look to voluntary beneficence for help, but beneficence is something the statist will never understand. Morality is forcing other people to participate in your version of civic existentialism by threatening them with violent reprisal or impoverishment.

[AggregateDemand]

When you have a system that features almost unrestrained increases in health care cost inflation, neither charity nor insurance will be able to pay for a lot of what people need. 

True, and it begs the question: Why did the 111th enact the biggest expansion of government spendthrift, since W signed Medicare Part D into law?

Expanding the problem is never the solution. We have no market-based insurance services. Health-insurance is tax-free, which means employers and healthcare-providers want to expand coverage until it no longer resembles insurance.

Insurance programs that actively encourage people to make frivolous claims are never going to be affordable or go down in price. I went to the doctor for a regular checkup and regular vaccination. I need to make an insurance claim. What?

[AggregateDemand]

I assume the major motive for enacting ACA was to expand coverage, because the number of people lacking any kind of insurance coverage in the U.S. was awful.  Problem is, of course, expanding coverage without controlling costs or having sound rationing mechanisms in place will increase utilization and only make total expenditures higher in the long run.  ACA doesn't address the cost issue.  But, if we're going to insist on spending gobs and gobs of money on health care without reigning in costs to begin with--and we weren't doing that before the legislation and showed no intentions of doing so--, then I'd prefer to have more people covered.

The US is not about making the disease more tolerable, and no matter how hard the left bleats in this country, they are never going to be satisfied by their own half-assed political agenda. They aren't satisfied with Welfare and Medicaid now, yet all we do is spend more money and expand benefits. Expanding coverage to treat the symptoms of the disease only makes the problem worse.

I just had another client come in today. He's 71, works full-time with gross income around $100,000/year. He also collects $20,000 in Social Security benefits., and pays less than $3,000 in tax on the SS benefits. Yet another "insurance program" run amok. He's not even retired. Expanding coverage and conferring pointless economic benefits has only hastened the decline of our lower-middle class and manufacturing sector. Frivolous health insurance programs will have the same consequence.

This kind of civic malfeasance hides in plain sight, but half of the country is too stupid to see it. They expand coverage and benefits because insurance is good, but all they get is rapid decline. The rest of us just shake our heads. Like listening to drug addicts identify the world's problem as not enough drugs. Sure. Let's see where that gets us.

[AggregateDemand]

Clearly, Social Security needs some serious reform.  But I thought we were talking about ACA beneficiaries and not Social Security ones.  Do people who receive insurance subsidies from the ACA earn $100,000 a year?  And if they don't, if they're "lower-middle class" or earn less, and can't afford insurance premiums on their own but would like to have insurance for themselves or their children, would they consider premium subsidies a "pointless economic benefit?"  If they do want help getting coverage when they can't afford it themselves, are they, as you describe them, "stupid?"  You might not want expanded coverage for them, but many of them do, and since they're citizens just like you are, they get to vote.  So, instead of derogating them, maybe you should spend some time convincing them that your way will fulfill their needs better than what we're doing now, instead of bitterly complaining about the "bleating left" on internet forums.

Yes. Millions of relatively wealthy Americans are getting Medicare and Medicaid benefits. ACA expands the latter without many controls to make sure the money goes to the right place. The general concept of SS is the same as MED or ACA.

Maybe rationalization would be satisfactory, if we really had some sort of moral conundrum between the rights of various groups, but we don't. It's just people allowing themselves to do reprehensible things with the treasury, and then justifying their misuse funds by purchasing an indulgence from the poor.......using a tiny fraction of the money we've set aside for the purpose of rehabilitating the poor.

It's okay to knowingly and negligently build a house without consideration for structural science or safety, as long as we're giving it to a homeless person. <------ The people who think this way are stupid, and they are making the rest of us worse off. The government is not even as noble as the private sector, who cut corners to boost earnings. The government is doing it wrong because laziness is easier than industriousness.